@DeathByVisualStudio: It's not a product name though, is it? It's not even a particular set of technology either.

So if it's no a particular set of technologies then what is the MSDN page for that I linked to in the original post about? Describing vapor?

A Windows Store app is a new type of application that runs on Windows 8 devices. Read on if you want to learn more about what makes Windows Store apps different from traditional desktop apps.

Dude 1: "I really like that app. Do you know if there's a Windows Store App version out yet?"

Dude 2: "No there's just the [WTFYouCallit] version right now. They do have a great version for the iPad though."

I half mockingly say iPad in Dude 2's response but unlike a Windows tablet there is just a single type of app that will run on it which is an important distinction. You reverse the conversation and it all breaks down.

Dude 1: "Nice iPad. I really like that app. Do you know if there's a Windows version out yet?"

Dude 2: "There is but its just a lame [WTFYouCallit] version. They haven't made a Windows Store version yet."

It's too bad just saying "Windows app" doesn't carry enough meaning. I'd be fine if the distinction was "Windows app" vs. "Windows desktop app" but the notion of what a "Windows app" has already been set in people's minds for a long, long time.

I still can't get over the fact that a bunch of dudes decided to name themselves after some insects. It just isn't cool. (Almost as bad as if they named themselves after a piece of fruit or something).

Point is the name doesn't really matter if the product is success. If we don't want to say Windows Store App" we will come up with an abbreviation or something else.that means "Windows Store App"

So if it's no a particular set of technologies then what is the MSDN page for that I linked to in the original post about? Describing vapor?

It's something. I just don't quite think there is a word to describe quite what "it" is particularly well. It's like trying to differentiate between apps based on the fact one of them used VB XML literals. You can arguably do it, but it's meaningless at the end of the day.

And yet, at the same time, in developer conversations there is a need to differentiate and the more usual ways (like distinguishing between a "managed code" and "native app" or a Java and .Net app) don't really apply. Even WinRT doesn't quite fit, because bits of WinRT can be called from traditional desktop apps (and non-desktop app could be talking about a web/console/service app)

*snip*

Dude 1: "Nice iPad. I really like that app. Do you know if there's a Windows version out yet?"

Dude 2: "There is but its just a lame [WTFYouCallit] version. They haven't made a Windows Store version yet."

People only talk like that in bad (usually Microsoft) ads though. Geeks aside, the only question people ask is "Can I get it on my device?" - they don't care about the details (though, obviously how it actually runs may heavily, albeit subconsciously, affect their opinion of whether it really is a good app or not).

Its easy to forget that, for a lot of people, the only difference between apps and webpages is that the webpages stop working when "the internet" is broken. They know there is probably some reason why, but if they're honest they don't really care what that is.

It's something. I just don't quite think there is a word to describe quite what "it" is particularly well. It's like trying to differentiate between apps based on the fact one of them used VB XML literals. You can arguably do it, but it's meaningless at the end of the day.

And yet, at the same time, in developer conversations there is a need to differentiate and the more usual ways (like distinguishing between a "managed code" and "native app" or a Java and .Net app) don't really apply. Even WinRT doesn't quite fit, because bits of WinRT can be called from traditional desktop apps (and non-desktop app could be talking about a web/console/service app)

*snip*

People only talk like that in bad (usually Microsoft) ads though. Geeks aside, the only question people ask is "Can I get it on my device?" - they don't care about the details (though, obviously how it actually runs may heavily, albeit subconsciously, affect their opinion of whether it really is a good app or not).

There is a distinct deference in style and operation between a Windows Store app and a traditional desktop app. It's not as obscure to Joe Schmo as you infer. If Joe has a tablet he'll probably want a Windows Store app (or maybe what he'd consider a "touch screen app"). If a crusty desktop version is the only thing available he wouldn't be interested. If Joe has a WinRT tablet he'd be precluded from even running the desktop app so he'd need to know what kind of app it was. There is context there than needs some vernacular for non-devs and "Windows Store App" just doesn't cut it IMO.

Its easy to forget that, for a lot of people, the only difference between apps and webpages is that the webpages stop working when "the internet" is broken. They know there is probably some reason why, but if they're honest they don't really care what that is.

That's not my take from this thread. If there were no difference people wouldn't prefer native apps over web.

There is a distinct deference in style and operation between a Windows Store app and a traditional desktop app. It's not as obscure to Joe Schmo as you infer. If Joe has a tablet he'll probably want a Windows Store app (or maybe what he'd consider a "touch screen app"). If a crusty desktop version is the only thing available he wouldn't be interested. If Joe has a WinRT tablet he'd be precluded from even running the desktop app so he'd need to know what kind of app it was. There is context there than needs some vernacular for non-devs and "Windows Store App" just doesn't cut it IMO.

I know what you mean, but that's largely based on the way desktop apps are traditionally made (which is why I said it might affect their overall opinion on whether it's a good app or not). The simple fact is there is absolutely nothing stopping you from writing a touch-first, full-screen app that looks and feels almost exactly like a "Windows Store App" but in fact actually isn't and in most cases (Windows RT tablets aside) it doesn't matter. You could even sell it via the Windows Store and then you'd have an app in the Windows Store that gives that same sort of full-screen immersive experience and yet isn't, for vague technical reasons, actually a Windows Store App.

The Windows RT tablet thing is more like the difference between a PC and Mac, I've lost count of the times people have asked me if they can install the version of Office (for Windows) they have on their new Mac. And when you say "No, you need a Mac version", there's always that slightly un-believing but ultimately reluctant acceptance they're going to be spending yet more money look that goes over their face, usually summed up with an "Oh. OK" response. Quite how Microsoft are going to make this difference clear to end users is beyond me though, I'm expecting a lot of confusion around RT devices.

*snip*

That's not my take from this thread. If there were no difference people wouldn't prefer native apps over web.

But there is a difference. It's that the web ones aren't as good. They break when your internet goes down, they often have these annoying "loading" pauses when you go into another section. Everything is always just that little bit more clunky than native apps, for example you can drag/drop pretty much everything into Word but trying that with a web based wordprocessor is more often going to do things you didn't expect.

The implementation of any system always make a big difference to how end users feel about it, however that doesn't translate into them caring about what that implementation is. Their opinion, good or bad, is based entirely on the overall experience.

I don't understand built in apps like the Music(Xbox Music) application either. You can't seem to add files from your computer to it's library, you can just play them. It seems like an app just to sell you music, no?

I don't understand built in apps like the Music(Xbox Music) application either. You can't seem to add files from your computer to it's library, you can just play them. It seems like an app just to sell you music, no?

Hmm, you sure? My win8 laptop plays files off a network share - I just added them to the My Music library, and you can edit the library to include anywhere really.

I don't understand built in apps like the Music(Xbox Music) application either. You can't seem to add files from your computer to it's library, you can just play them. It seems like an app just to sell you music, no?

It will look at your Music Library for local content (which of course, you have to set up on the desktop).

It's still a crummy app that opens to a "buy this stuff now" screen instead of showing your library.

Frankly, I'm disappointed in all of the bundled apps. MS could have done a lot better.

You can blur the discussion all you want but it doesn't take away from the facts that:

Most people know when they are using a web site vs. running a native app (why else do they elicit a preference?) We're not talking about how they feel about MVC, Telerik controls, or any other aspect of development.

Your point about faux full screen "Windows Store App" - like apps on the desktop is fiction. There are few if any apps like this.

Especially around WinRT Microsoft needs to add vernacular so you can have those conversation with users where you tell them "you need a Windows Store App" version of the app. That just sounds lame.

@blowdart: I'm on a domain too. No "Add To Library" context menu item appears on any folder on my network. That doesn't surprise me since it may not be there all of the time. Is your network share set to be "always available offline"?

@blowdart: I'm on a domain too. No "Add To Library" context menu item appears on any folder on my network. That doesn't surprise me since it may not be there all of the time. Is your network share set to be "always available offline"?